Talk:Desire (Geri Halliwell song)

Fair use of alternate cover
Since the image, File:Geri Halliwell - Desire - CD 2.jpg, has removed by one editor citing WP:NFC, without saying how this image specifically violates it, I am starting a discussion here so that the image is not deleted simply for being orphaned.

The current consensus for alternate covers in infoboxes, per Template:Infobox album that can then be tied to Template:Infobox single, are that they pass WP:NFCC if the alternate cover is "significantly different from the original and is widely distributed and/or replaces the original has generally been held to pass this criterion." This alternate cover is significantly different from the original cover and is widely released in Europe and Australia, and therefore passes the criterion. Aspects (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the alternate cover is totally different and not identical to the 1st single cover.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am re-removing file isnt tied to any sourced critical commentary, and thus does not meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There does not need to be sourced critical commentary for the second image because it is significantly different from the first image and is widely distributed in Europe and Australia where it charted. This is the only image of Geri Halliwell's singles that I added back because it stated it was widely distributed, where the other images just stated it was the second cover for the United Kingdom and were not widely distributed. Aspects (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Keeping this image or not is currently under the WP:BRD method. And according to BRD, "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." So you cannot just remove the image without getting a consensus.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A talk-page consensus cannot overrule Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Except that this alternate cover is consistent with WP:NFCC policy as I stated above it that it is significantly different from the original cover and is widely distributed thereby replacing the image in major areas, Europe and Australia. The reason a discussion had to be started is that Werieth refuses to take any image to Files for deletion as many editors and admins told him to if he finds his image removals reverted. Aspects (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is you who just cannot accept NFC. You re-inserted the file without a valid reason other than ILIKEIT. As you where told, going to FFD is the wrong venue. You where also told that NFCR is the correct method to review these removals but you refuse to go there because you know your argument holds about as much water as a sieve. General consensus is that 1 image for visual identification is allowed, beyond that it needs critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I based my opinion on current interpretations of WP:NFCC and explained it as such, so saying my opinion simply boils down to WP:ILIKEIT is completely disingenuous and simply dismisses my argument. As for FFD vs NFCR I will quote something Masem stated last month, "Well, its more that NFCR should not be used to put up an image where the nominator firmly believes that the image should be deleted - that's where FFD is used. NFCR should be for any other cases, including where there is too much non-free but which images to keep or remove is unclear. You don't have to use NFCR for that, that's why the article talk page is fine to discuss that, but if you are certain that a specific image should be deleted with no question, then yes, FFD it.", . Aspects (talk)


 * WP:NFCC, Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information is what is in play here. File:Desire-ukcd1.jpg, a non-free file, is already used as the main image in the infobox.  The only way #2 could be validly used in the article if there are reliable sources that directly discuss the significance of the second album cover, e.g. Yesterday and Today. Tarc (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the image, it is quite clearly not being used in accordance with several sections of the NFCC policy. It fails assessment under numerous sections of the NFCC policy, as discussed above, under section 3a, section 8 (as the image isn't referenced or discussed, it cannot be said to be enhancing the understanding of the article) and section 5 (the image isn't specifically encyclopedic and is largely used in a decorative capacity). There are a limited number of music articles that we have permitted to have more than one album cover (normally no more than two), and these include Virgin Killer, Yesterday and Today and Blind Faith (Blind Faith album) where the original artwork was replaced or modified because of content or due to complaints from retailers, record companies etc (and this is, of course, discussed extensively in the text of each of those articles). We also have two album covers on articles like The Dark Side of the Moon. The discussion about the new artwork created for DSOTM's 30th anniversary SACD release is probably longer than the entire article here, anyway, to justify the second image, editors have created the following text on Dark Side of the Moon."The image is a photograph of a custom-made stained glass window, built to match the exact dimensions and proportions of the original prism design. Transparent glass, held in place by strips of lead, was used in place of the opaque colours of the original. The idea is derived from the 'sense of purity in the sound quality, being 5.1 surround sound...' The image was created out of a desire to be 'the same but different, such that the design was clearly DSotM, still the recognisable prism design, but was different and hence new'." I hope that helps you understand what is required to use more than one album artwork image per article and why I don't envisage any circumstances you'll be able to do so with this article. I trust that explains the situation clearly for you all. Nick (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternate album/single cover images are discussed all of the time at WP:NFCC: August 2013, August 2013, August 2012, September 2011, July 2010,March 2010, July 2009. WikiProject Album discussions: August 2011, June 2009 and February 2009. An RfC that covered it in part: Non-free content/Cover art RfC.  A recent Village pump discussion in August 2013: Village pump (policy)/Archive 108.  What keeps getting reaffirmed is that alternate cover images are acceptable in infoboxes if they are significantly different from the original and widely distributed and/or replace the original. Aspects (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't appear that anything of the sort is affirmed in those discussions, they all take the general forum of:
 * "Why can't I use more than 1 album cover?"
 * WP:NFCC #3.
 * "But the infobox docs say I can"
 * Our non-free policy says you can't
 * whereupon the discussion peters out until the next go-around a few months later. If the alt cover is to be used, there has to be an actual reason to do so.  Does it convey some information of importance to the reader that the album cover #1 does not, is there a significant or important difference from the original, has it itself been covered in reliable sources, and so on.  "Because I want to" isn't a valid reason.  "Because they marketed it" isn't a valid reason.  In this particular case here, we have "pretty girl smiling on bed" vs. "pretty girl smiling against a wall".  I'm not learning more about Geri Haliwell and her song "Desire" by looking at her leaning against a wall. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Aspects, as you've been told repeatedly (there's a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on) you CAN have one or more additional images in the article IF you discuss why a different cover was used or created, as editors have done on all of the articles we have given as examples. If you don't, you're using non free content for purely decorative purposes and in a manner likely to confuse editors rather than educate and explain to them about the album/single covers. Nick (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)